Justin Bennett, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Justin Bennett appeals his convictions for battery resulting in bodily injury as a class A misdemeanor and battery as a class B misdemeanor and claims the evidence is insufficient to sustain his convictions. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] At 9:00 p.m. on August 3, 2024, Morgan Lawton and her husband were at a taco truck at a gas station and observed Bennett “acting like he was shooting people” and “acting like he was on something ․ [l]ike methamphetamine ․ for at least 20 minutes.” Transcript Volume II at 11-12. Bennett “went towards the gas station,” “was getting into their trash,” and threw it “all over ․ the ground.” Id. at 13. Bennett began beating on a dumpster with crates.

[3] Charles Gamble, who typically “make[s] sure everything over there is okay” because the gas station “had a lot of trouble,” was purchasing tacos and gas and heard “milk crates flying to the left of the building.” Id. at 20-21. Gamble entered the gas station to speak with someone and then walked outside and observed Bennett for three or four minutes. Gamble or an employee of the gas station called the police.¹ Outside, when Gamble turned to walk away, Bennett struck him in the back of the head. Bennett then struck Lawton on her face. Lawton began feeling “faint from the pressure on [her] face” and experienced pain, and a “bruise ․ popped up like two days later.” Id. at 17. Bennett began running, and Gamble followed him until police arrived.

[4] On December 27, 2024, the State charged Bennett with Count I, battery resulting in bodily injury as a class A misdemeanor, and Count II, battery as a class B misdemeanor.² On September 23, 2025, the court held a bench trial. The State presented the testimony of Lawton and Gamble. The prosecutor introduced photographs of Lawton as State's Exhibits 1 and 2. Lawton stated, “Two is where it had first happened and one is the day or two afterwards.” Id. at 15. When asked to define “it,” she answered, “The mark on my face from being hit by Justin Bennett.” Id. Lawton also testified that Exhibit 2 “shows the red mark on the cheek from where he had hit me.” Id. at 16. The court admitted the exhibits without objection. After the State rested, Bennett testified that “[t]hat girl and that guy” “chased me with a gun and tried to throw bricks and bullets at me.” Id. at 33.

[5] The court found Bennett guilty as charged. It sentenced Bennett to concurrent sentences of 365 days with one day suspended for Count I and 180 days for Count II.

Discussion

[6] Bennett acknowledges that “[t]he two State witnesses were clear in their testimony that [he] was the aggressor throughout the entire episode” and that “they were not being confrontational and were attacked by” him. Appellant's Brief at 8. He asserts that he testified “to being attacked and chased by both witnesses, especially Charles Gamble.” Id. He contends that the “alleged injuries sustained by the two State witnesses were not corroborated by the pictures in Exhibit[s] 1 and 2” and “[t]he case is the word of two witnesses against the word of appellant.” Id. at 9.

[7] When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we must consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146 (Ind. 2007). We do not assess witness credibility or reweigh the evidence. Id. We consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the trial court's ruling. Id. We affirm the conviction unless no reasonable factfinder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. It is not necessary that the evidence overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Id. at 147. The evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Id.

[8] Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1 provides that “a person who knowingly or intentionally ․ touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner ․ commits battery, a Class B misdemeanor” and “[t]he offense ․ is a Class A misdemeanor if it ․ results in bodily injury to any other person.”³

[9] The record reveals that Gamble testified, “[W]hen I turned away to walk away from [Bennett], hit me in the back of the head.” Transcript Volume II at 25. He also stated, “I didn't touch him.” Id. Lawton testified that Bennett “had started hitting the other guy that was there, and I was like, this ain't that deep, don't be doing it. As soon as I said that he had hit me in my face.” Id. at 14. Lawton testified that she began feeling “faint from the pressure on [her] face” and experienced pain, and a “bruise ․ popped up like two days later.” Id. at 17. She also testified that Exhibit 2 “shows the red mark on the cheek from where he had hit me” and the photo was taken “[t]wo days later” and showed a “bruise on [her] cheek.” Id. at 16. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Lawton, “And you did not go after Mr. Bennett, right?” Id. at 18. She answered, “No.” Id.

[10] Based upon the record, we conclude that evidence of probative value exists from which the court could determine that Bennett committed battery resulting in bodily injury as a class A misdemeanor against Lawton and battery as a class B misdemeanor against Gamble.

[11] For the foregoing reasons, we affirm Bennett's convictions.

[12] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Gamble testified, “We called the police.” Transcript Volume II at 25.

2.   Count I related to Lawton and alleged that Bennett's touching of Lawton resulted in “bodily injury, that is: pain and/or swelling and/or bruising.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 14. Count II related to Gamble.

3.   To the extent Bennett contends that the “alleged injuries sustained by the two State witnesses were not corroborated by the pictures in Exhibit[s] 1 and 2,” Appellant's Brief at 9, we note that Count II was charged as a class B misdemeanor and alleged that Bennett “did knowingly touch Charles Gamble in a rude, insolent, or angry manner by pushing him and/or striking him.” Appellant's Appendix Volume II at 14. Thus, the State was not required to prove Gamble suffered an injury.

Brown, Judge.

Altice, J., and DeBoer, J., concur.